|
|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads |  |
AUGUST 13, 2007
Putting Drug Ads Back In The Bottle Efforts to curb consumer advertising are growing, but so far have met little success If representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) had his way, you might not get to see that little butterfly that has been fluttering all over your TV screen to advertise the insomnia remedy Lunesta. Waxman has spent much of the summer pushing legislation to limit direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs that have been on the market less than three years. His efforts came up short. Congress considered the ad restrictions Waxman and others were trying to attach to a big drug safety bill they passed in July. But after a debate about drug companies' right to free speech, the ad restrictions were stripped out. The mighty drug lobby has chalked up another victory--but the fight over drug advertising isn't over. Critics are increasingly concerned that the ads encourage consumers to demand drugs they don't need and that may cause harmful side effects down the road. A moratorium on advertising, some say, would give the Food & Drug Administration and pharma companies more time to understand the risks before ads for these remedies are plastered all over the place (see BusinessWeek.com, 8/6/07, "Dispense with TV Drug Ads"). One watchdog, Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif.), has an intriguing idea. He recently introduced a bill proposing that if a drugmaker runs consumer ads for a product that has been on the market less than two years, it cannot claim them as a business expense on its taxes. Hitting the industry where it hurts--the bottom line--is his attempt to discourage advertising while skirting concerns about freedom of speech. The ads, Stark says, "don't tell the whole story. We need to give people time to understand the pros and cons of a drug." Happy patients raving about prescription drugs on TV is an American phenomenon. Only one other country, New Zealand, allows drug companies to market their products directly to consumers; all others deem it too dangerous. Yet in the U.S., targeting consumers has become a huge business. Unknown before 1997, when the FDA relaxed its rules, TV drug advertising surged to $5.3 billion in 2006, up 14% from 2005, according to New York-based ad tracker TNS Media Intelligence. Ad spending in the pharma sector grew faster than in any other industry among the top 10 spenders, including autos and telecom. And the three most heavily advertised drugs--Lunesta and Ambien CR for sleep and Cymbalta for depression--were approved just in the past three years. NEW YORK REVOLT The prospect of losing all that ad revenue is enough to cause executives in a few heavy-hitting industries to reach for the heartburn medicine. (Perhaps Nexium, the fifth-most-heavily-advertised drug last year?) The revolt against Waxman's bill was led by three members of Congress from New York, home to most of the major TV networks and advertising agencies, not to mention drug giants Pfizer Inc. (PFE ) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY ). The industry's trade group, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), says the ads benefit public health by encouraging people to see their doctors about conditions they might not otherwise know they can treat. As for side effects, "Our feeling is that when a drug is approved, the FDA has already made an assessment that it is safe," says Scott Lassman, PhRMA's senior assistant general counsel. Critics of drug advertising are alarmed by the combined clout of pharmaceutical companies and media giants. "Public policy is about capital, not public interest," says John Abramson, clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and author of the book Overdosed America, which explores the commercialization of health care. Abramson adds that there are now two drug lobbyists for every member of Congress, up from one when his book was published in 2004. Join a debate about TV prescription drug ads.  By Arlene Weintraub
BW MALL
SPONSORED LINKS
Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.
Buy a link now! Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed. Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video. To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here. Learn more, go to the BusinessWeekOnline home page  | | |
 Copyright 2007, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version